The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring financial educator and author Jared Dillian has been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
This means sending in your vote tomorrow or calling you broker tomorrow to ensure they have the message!
Bravo - Freddie Keep up the excellent work.... just in from work, will attempt to help by stating you can also read it in full on her LINKED IN page ?
Its now or never folks.... vote with SAG and its a walk in the park and maybe a park bench for you know who ???
The SAG have been working quietly behind the scenes and now is the time that YOUR vote can help assert change!
Don't leave it to chance saying oh they have enough votes, I don't need to add my 500 as they don't matter THEY DO matter!
Plus as a bonus Nom Nom will pay out money!!! To CHARITY :) Bravo Nom Nom
Thank You VJ
Think she needs to influence the board by stating no more extortionate salary’s and bonuses without positive results imo !
commence reading from 17.21 post.....I have posted these which follow on from that time to this most recent one
Please read this lengthy post from the earliest time to this last post
If I were to have an influential position in the company I would be endeavouring to influence the board to increase both accuracy and detail of shareholder communications – to include indicative timelines and budgets against which the board can be held accountable; and to link board member salaries, bonus payments and/or option awards to those measures. I believe that in the current climate of economic instability, even more so than ever, the overheads for any company need to be closely managed and reduced to the minimum feasible; and in this case, I believe the overall ambitions for the company need to be updated to reflect the current industry trends for possibilities for out-licensing and funding partnerships at different stages in drug development.
In summary, I think the business would benefit from a complete overhaul and refresh of, not just of image, but of the very foundations that the image needs to accurately reflect – but only if it is the will of the shareholders!
In Valirx, the shareholders have shown themselves to be people of good business understanding, as well as compassionate for the cause; and only with the backing, the understanding and the co-operation of these shareholders can the company move forwards, and I believe this is an ideal opportunity for that to happen – whichever team is in charge.
*Disclosure: The author is a company director of a subsidiary of Valirx (ValiSeek), but has had no resources in or around Valirx plc since 21st February 2020. The opinions and analysis in this article contain no inside information and reflect my personal views only; they do not represent the views of any other person or corporate body.
While in an ideal world, the scientific capabilities of both potentially outgoing individuals would still be accessible, whether through short term consultancy contracts, or via a period of “garden leave” whereby the old could carry out a dignified handover to the new. However, in these circumstances, where the old are potentially being forcibly removed to make room for the new, regardless of individual characters, such a handover would be unlikely to be easy.
I think at this stage, it’s important to put this in the context of the specific company, and of the very nature of a ‘virtual biotech’. While the central company, Valirx, has a very important role as Sponsor of the trial, and of forming the initial scientific ideas and inventions that initiate a trial, the actual execution and day-to-day running of a clinical trial in a virtual biotech is carried out by a ‘Clinical Research Organisation’ (CRO), or a team of individuals sited within a selection of CROs. The Sponsor (the company Valirx, not any named individual) is legally required to have full oversight of the trial and the contractors, but nevertheless, it is the CROs who provide for smooth running of the trial.
Valirx follows this model, so with the removal of the two executive directors in question, there should be no reason for the close down of the VAL201 clinical trial to be impacted at all by the changeover, as capable people at the CROs will continue to work with continuity despite changes within the Sponsor. In fact, the impact of the virus lockdown is more likely to influence timelines, as restrictions on staff entering the hospital to verify patient notes and data prior to analysis, as well as key personnel being hampered by school and nursery closures.
I’ll admit that I have ulterior motive for requesting that you get your votes in in plenty of time. If the majority of shareholders do indeed vote in favour of both resolutions, I believe the remaining board should and will consider appointing myself as a director.
I believe the vote is required as a genuine poll to assess whether the true majority of shareholders wish a wholesale change in the leadership of the company (it’s always difficult without such a referendum to know whether you are talking to a noisy minority or a true majority of voters), but if a change is voted for, then this needs to be immediately enacted, with personnel capable of hitting the ground running, with knowledge of the projects, and an open mind on how to incorporate the best of the old, alongside a radically new business plan.
Remember also that, to my understanding of the articles, if a director is appointed by the board (rather than by the shareholders) then that director will automatically be subject to a re-appointment vote at the next AGM. If my understanding is correct, this means, that if the directors appoint me in April as a director, then you, as shareholders, can choose whether or not to keep me as a director as soon as the AGM (which would be expected to be in June). This gives me just a couple of months to assess the situation, initiate a working plan to move the company forwards, and present that plan to you all formally. With the AGM so soon after the new directors are appointed, this provides the shareholders an immediate feedback possibility.
With the cut-off date set by the number of working days before the meeting, it’s important to take note of the double bank holiday approaching this weekend. To be sure of your vote being counted, I would strongly recommend submitting it by tomorrow at the latest! Under normal circumstances, you would still be able to attend the meeting to register your vote (or change your pre-cast vote), but on this occasion, with the lockdown still in force, it would be logical to assume the meeting will take the same format as that held last week (albeit with more notice).
According to the publicly available company articles, the company can exist with only two directors, so the remaining two current directors, Gerry Desler and Kevin Alexander are sufficient to keep the company open until they can hold a board meeting to appoint their chosen replacements. With Peterhouse contributing Martin Lampshire (as announced on 1st April 2020) to the board as a non-executive director, ideally a further one or two executive members of the board could be immediately added (subject to nomad approval of suitability), taking the total to either four or five (four is always a difficult number for decision-making by a board – even if two of them aren’t related!).
With one hurriedly convened General Meeting last week, Valirx (AIM:VAL) have another scheduled for next week, on 14th April. This time it is the meeting that has been requested by a group of shareholders, with two resolutions proposed: one to remove George Morris as a company director and the other to remove Satu Vainikka as a director.
Both are ordinary resolutions, so if the vote in favour of the resolution is over 50% of the total votes, then the individual should be immediately removed from their directorships.
Regardless of whether you believe they are the best people to run the company, and therefore want to vote against the resolutions, or whether you agree with the group who have requested the meeting and wish for them both to be removed; the most important thing is to make sure your voice is heard. You need to make sure that your voting intention is registered, for most people through your share trading account, or via the proxy form.